Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.30 17:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: ghosttr on 30/06/2007 17:16:56 I think that instead of using gate guns, or just locking the gates, that there should be a different way of restricting access
I think that players should be able to setup deadspace complexes around gates & belts just like the npcs do.
-Gate Defense structures-
These would be fairly expensive, and take fuel. and need to be refueled every 24-48hours and building one would require constellation sov.
Warping to the gate would place you ~20km from the gate, and you couldnt use mwd or cloak. Warping to the gate at any range would always bring you to 20km so snipers couldn't warp in at range to take out defense structures.
Defenses available would be small/medium guns, webber/scram/nos batteries. Hardeners would also be available to fortify your structures.
-Asteroid belt structures-
When static asteroid belts are removed a corp should be able to stake a claim at one of these belts by launching a similar deadspace type structure. This structure should offer defenses similar to the ones at stargates, but shouldnt require as much fuel, and would only need refueling every week or so.
When one of these is anchored in an asteroid field it would defend the miners and also prevent rats from spawning. It could also provide temporary storage so jet cans wouldn't be needed. And the deadspace would allow warping in to exact locations in the field, but wouldnt allow cloakers or mwd.
The only drawback is that there will be a beacon in system to warp to the plex, which would make finding your mining operations alot easier for any hostiles.
**Also for both types of plex when your plex defenses are attacked they would go offline, and would need to be repaired & re-onlined to be used again. They would also go offline if you ran out of fuel but the deadspace effects would persist so you cant avoid the drawbacks of anchoring one (like if you tried to turn it off to bring a freightor through) . Better player owned system defense
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.06.30 17:21:00 -
[2]
No cloaks or MWDs while approaching the gate in constellation sov only areas? How could this be countered in a most likely heavily camped area? ______________ Join the Family |
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.30 17:24:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kakita Jalaan No cloaks or MWDs while approaching the gate in constellation sov only areas? How could this be countered in a most likely heavily camped area?
The point of the feul requirements on the gate ones is to make it so that alliances wont spam one on every gate in every system. I think the logistics requirements of having to refuel it everyday would make it so that you wont be spamming these everywhere, but more measures may be needed.
Also the guns will have relatively low hp, so without support the plexes would be very easy for a medium gang to take down/ . Better player owned system defense
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.30 21:11:00 -
[4]
Any thoughts anyone . Better player owned system defense
|
Emmalina
|
Posted - 2007.07.01 20:57:00 -
[5]
I guess this would help BOB out no end... they have the money! at least last time I checked they did.
I don't like this.
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 01:03:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Emmalina I guess this would help BOB out no end... they have the money! at least last time I checked they did.
I don't like this.
This would help out any 0.0 alliance
The point of the fuel requirements & deadspace attributes is so that placing one will take alot of logistics to operate and also hinder operations between systems with one in one of the systems.
Also it will decrease the range they can effectively defend, having a force of battleships one side of the barrier, and having your foes on the other would be a problem because it would take alot longer for your forces to bypass your own defense measures. . Do not read this thread!!!
|
Abculatter
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 04:38:00 -
[7]
i like this idea, altho im a noob, it sounds like a very good idea.
|
Cygnet Lythanea
Ninjitsu Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 05:12:00 -
[8]
might want to check the search, both of these have been prposed before... in a rather similar idea.
Originally by: Cygnet Lythanea I resent the implication that my and my corps refusal to join an alliance in 0.0 equates laziness.
|
Rameth
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 05:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: ghosttr Warping to the gate would place you ~20km from the gate, and you couldnt use mwd or cloak. Warping to the gate at any range would always bring you to 20km so snipers couldn't warp in at range to take out defense structures.
So they'd be indestructible then.
Lame.
I don't like this idea.
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 06:47:00 -
[10]
No, no no and 1 time more no If you wanna control your territory, get some ppl not game mechanics. ---
|
|
Lord Evangelian
Gallente LEAP Corp United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 09:19:00 -
[11]
I cant see how this is a bonus to the game...to me it seems like a REAL waste of time...with no benefit to game play only helping those in 0.0, making it imposible to for any one to get in or out... ------------------------------------------
One day I'll show you...and then you will bow down... |
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 10:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Rameth
Originally by: ghosttr Warping to the gate would place you ~20km from the gate, and you couldnt use mwd or cloak. Warping to the gate at any range would always bring you to 20km so snipers couldn't warp in at range to take out defense structures.
So they'd be indestructible then.
Lame.
I don't like this idea.
They would have about the same hp as the normal npc ones, that far from indestructible. . Do not read this thread!!!
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 10:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Valandril No, no no and 1 time more no If you wanna control your territory, get some ppl not game mechanics.
When you spend 90% of your play time defending your space because every tom, **** and harry wants to go for a joyride it gets pretty pathetic. NPCs have these complexes to defend thier space, shy shouldnt we . Do not read this thread!!!
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 10:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Lord Evangelian I cant see how this is a bonus to the game...to me it seems like a REAL waste of time...with no benefit to game play only helping those in 0.0, making it imposible to for any one to get in or out...
Well CCP has stated many times that it wants go get peope out of empire into lowsec or 0.0. This would make it safer for those that move out to 0.0, and just be another incentive to hop off the carebear train. . Do not read this thread!!!
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 14:28:00 -
[15]
Originally by: ghosttr
Originally by: Valandril No, no no and 1 time more no If you wanna control your territory, get some ppl not game mechanics.
When you spend 90% of your play time defending your space because every tom, **** and harry wants to go for a joyride it gets pretty pathetic. NPCs have these complexes to defend thier space, shy shouldnt we
This is war, if ur under attack u either sit and defend or you break tho attack and execute counter attack.
And locking system with npc defenses will total kill small roaming guys, raiders.
1 of worst ideas last days :] ---
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 16:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Valandril
Originally by: ghosttr
Originally by: Valandril No, no no and 1 time more no If you wanna control your territory, get some ppl not game mechanics.
When you spend 90% of your play time defending your space because every tom, **** and harry wants to go for a joyride it gets pretty pathetic. NPCs have these complexes to defend thier space, shy shouldnt we
This is war, if ur under attack u either sit and defend or you break tho attack and execute counter attack.
And locking system with npc defenses will total kill small roaming guys, raiders.
1 of worst ideas last days :]
Well if an allaince is willing to pay the price its should be able to defend itself from smaller nuisances. A 10 man interceptor gang should nt able to bypass allaince defenses and roam about as they please. I thoutht this was a more in depth alternative to gate guns, which would serve the same purpose. . Do not read this thread!!!
|
Gargulous
|
Posted - 2007.07.17 11:05:00 -
[17]
Hi,
I have only been a member of this great universe for about 2 1/2 weeks.
This post caught my eye because I am not a great fan of Pvp. However this game is, i think richer for that aspect, as much as i dont like to be spagged by pirates. This suggestion seems to add to the advantage already held by members of large organisations, thus stifling the potential for smaller opperators to get value from the game.
My two arguments against it are simple.
1 - a)Some people like to be part of something big and special. (Corp./Alliance) b)Some people like to work alone or with a close group of mates. (Gang/Solo) This idea advantages group players and disadvantages small teams/individuals.
2 - a)Alliances and Corporations have the advantage of large numbers of personell. b)Alliances and Corporations have the ability to maintain deffensive real estate. c)Allinces can use the personell to protect that real estate. d)Inability to defend ones territory is a common error made by the overextended. Stick to what you are willing and able to protect.
In conclusion, it appears to me that if raiders are a problem for your organisation, then you are trying to own more than you can defend. To seek to rectify this through the posited defensive setups is a cop out that will stop smaller opperators from having access to the majority of 0.0 space. This would be unreasonable.
Instead of requesting "BIGGER GUNZ", try keeping to the territory you can reasonably protect. And be prepared to write off some losses to the occasoinal raider in taxes and higher prices for goods, just like the larger real world corporations do.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 03:33:00 -
[18]
your hate for cloaks is obvious - this mechanic destroys cloaks - thus is unbalanced and should never be implemented ____ __ ________ _sig below_ the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore
miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some |
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 05:09:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Gargulous Hi,
I have only been a member of this great universe for about 2 1/2 weeks.
This post caught my eye because I am not a great fan of Pvp. However this game is, i think richer for that aspect, as much as i dont like to be spagged by pirates. This suggestion seems to add to the advantage already held by members of large organisations, thus stifling the potential for smaller opperators to get value from the game.
My two arguments against it are simple.
1 - a)Some people like to be part of something big and special. (Corp./Alliance) b)Some people like to work alone or with a close group of mates. (Gang/Solo) This idea advantages group players and disadvantages small teams/individuals.
2 - a)Alliances and Corporations have the advantage of large numbers of personell. b)Alliances and Corporations have the ability to maintain deffensive real estate. c)Allinces can use the personell to protect that real estate. d)Inability to defend ones territory is a common error made by the overextended. Stick to what you are willing and able to protect.
In conclusion, it appears to me that if raiders are a problem for your organisation, then you are trying to own more than you can defend. To seek to rectify this through the posited defensive setups is a cop out that will stop smaller opperators from having access to the majority of 0.0 space. This would be unreasonable.
Instead of requesting "BIGGER GUNZ", try keeping to the territory you can reasonably protect. And be prepared to write off some losses to the occasoinal raider in taxes and higher prices for goods, just like the larger real world corporations do.
Well it requires constellation sov, which requires 3 outposts per system, this would not be to defend the outskirts of one space, rather as another measure to help protect the core systems from small raids. Ships such as interceptors and recons are uncatchable unless they make a mistake, we should have some defense against things such as this . Do not read this thread!!!
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 05:58:00 -
[20]
They are catchable, intys with instalocking huggins and recons with anything that know how to decloak ship (anything fast with 5 drones will do). And any kind of system that take role off player is no-go. ---
|
|
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 07:25:00 -
[21]
no, bad idea.
this will lead to a need of blod for even entering a system.
As for the belts, you want rat/enemy free belts? go in 0.9-1.0 and mine velds. This is a no-no for 0.0. Why not just implement a timer to inject ISK in your accound from time to time.
Blazing Fire CEO Interstellar Operations Incorporated Corp web site Recruting
Services [Service] Killboard hosting [Service] Forum hosting [Service] Web site hosting [Service] Obelisk loaning [Service] Alliance Creation
|
Arvald
Caldari House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 05:41:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Blazing Fire \ Why not just implement a timer to inject ISK in your accound from time to time.
my name is arvald and i fully endorse this idea Being attacked by arvald
uuu....Huston....we have a problem |
Parsor Evarkis
Minmatar Thrace Inc Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.07.20 07:02:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Parsor Evarkis on 20/07/2007 07:03:47
Originally by: ghosttr Edited by: ghosttr on 30/06/2007 17:16:56 -Gate Defense structures- [/b][/center] These would be fairly expensive, and take fuel. and need to be refueled every 24-48hours and building one would require constellation sov.
Warping to the gate would place you ~20km from the gate, and you couldnt use mwd or cloak. Warping to the gate at any range would always bring you to 20km so snipers couldn't warp in at range to take out defense structures.
Defenses available would be small/medium guns, webber/scram/nos batteries. Hardeners would also be available to fortify your structures.
I would propose a (only slightly) modified solution, how about some type of object you can anchor in space that stops people warping in to an area. Or even some sort of launcher that launches an object that does something similar although for a limited time.
Then you can have these other defenders, they should come in various sizes and you can fit out how you like, these things need to have a player man them so they can target, and activate their modules on enemies, pilots should be able to warp these things from place to place to make them more flexible.
I like the Asteroid belt idea, you could set up a structure that defends your miners and allows you to store and perhaps even reprocess your ore, something that needs refueling every week or so, but I think it might be better situated at a nearby moon, rather than at the asteroid belt, your miners will have to warp out of the asteroid belt to get protection, but that's a small price to pay, you could use similar defenders to those mentioned above to take care of any rats spawning.
To deal with the cloak and MWD, I would propose that you could set up defenders that are sufficiently fast to take care of these.
Go on CCP, implement my ideas now, you know you want to.
|
Fusebl0wn
Caldari Goblin Squad Empire Research
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 19:28:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Parsor Evarkis I like the Asteroid belt idea, you could set up a structure that defends your miners and allows you to store and perhaps even reprocess your ore, something that needs refueling every week or so, but I think it might be better situated at a nearby moon, rather than at the asteroid belt, your miners will have to warp out of the asteroid belt to get protection, but that's a small price to pay
That idea is called a POS with a refinery array and guns. |
Sviatoslav KillJoy
The Templars Knights Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.11.24 11:41:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Sviatoslav KillJoy on 24/11/2007 11:41:43 Its a good idea but its just too much hastle for maintaining and trying to kill, lol
|
Helen Hunts
Gallente Red Dragon Mining inc
|
Posted - 2007.11.24 18:53:00 -
[26]
I see a request for an "Easy Mode" button from the OP, with predictable replies.
If you want to hold your little patch of 0.0, you're going to need active manpower, not the ability to deploy 'I-Win' structures. Find a spot with 1 or two access points and camp those while keeping cyno jammers running in the systems you wish to protect.
If you still can't handle it, might I suggest joining up with an alliance that can, or heading on back to high-sec where you won't have to worry about the bad mans hurting you no more. _______________________________
Mine da rocks, make more ships. Pop da rats, make more rigs. Sell da gear, make more money.
Any Questions? |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |